"Teach the controversy" tactics threaten wind energy revolution

Aeolus, you are right that nuclear is unacceptable and there are problems with coal burning. But wind turbines are not the answer. It's insane that humans are so desparate to keep their electric dishwashers and airconditioners and tv sets that they will destoy the essence of rural areas. The "change" you see as progress is just the same old consumerism of the past 100 years, and the same solution: rape nature in any way possible to generate grid electricity. That's an old paradigm.

Posted by: yes I have a nature-loving body and so do you , 30 Jul 2009 | 08:27

A very enlightening article. A nimby anti-windfarm group in my local area has been using exactly these disingenuous tactics.

Interesting also to note that the usual, and utterly stupid, 'windfarms don't work' argument had to find its way into the comments.

Some people are just stuck in the 20th century, when you could waste energy to your heart's content, and refuse to accept that, in the 21st century, new and sustainable solutions are required (and preferably not nuclear - we still haven't figured out how to protect the hazardous waste for hundreds of thousands of years). They'd rather live in the comfortable, unsustainable past, than embrace the present solutions to a future crisis.

Having visited several windfams, I'm happy to say that they're pretty well silent and work for most of the time. That is undeniable - only by pontificating, at some distance from a working windfarm, can the crazies pretend otherwise.

The adverse health effects apparently experienced by a minority of people in the vicinity of windfarms are a psychological reaction, prompted by irresponsible claims that windfarms are something that they're not (i.e., noisy emitters of some immeasurable wave or other).

Bring on the windfarms. We'll have to reduce our electricity consumption anyway, and the turbines I've seen at work can supply a community with most, if not all, of its electricity needs. Supposing, of course, that the community is composed of intelligent and aware citizens who accept that we share a common responsibility for sensible energy usage and the wider environment. Sadly, we'll have to wait for the current me-me-me generation of gas-guzzler drivers and climate change deniers to die off before such a community might appear.

Posted by: Aeolus , 06 Jul 2009 | 17:41

The Baker Wind Turbine is a major breakthrough in wind energy technology. The super quiet, Low Pressure Turbine is enclosed and 100% bird and people safe which allows the turbine to be installed and operated in close proximity to people. This eliminates the need for long transmission lines because the electricity is consumed close to where the electricity is generated. The 12 feet in diameter Model #3 Baker Wind Turbine is mounted on a car trailer and the unit is easily transported. Set-up is easy. The outriggers lift the turbine foundation and stabilize the turbine so that it can rotate 360 degrees. The fenders and tires are removed. No tower is needed; all that is necessary is a 6’ by 6’ wind flow. More efficient and powerful than a single dimension propeller driven windmill, this multidimensional wind energy turbine dynamic has never been seen before. Of course, the multidimensional turbine dynamic does not even resemble a single dimension propeller driven windmill. Google Baker Wind Turbine and two videos will appear; the longer video demonstrates the Low Pressure Turbine Dynamic.

Let me explain to you the basic turnaround in wind energy science and technology demonstrated by the Baker Wind Turbine. You don’t have to be a genius to understand wind energy.

First, the maximum amount of energy in the wind is directly in front of the wind. This is the basic and simple premise and is easily proven to anyone logically. (Aristotelian logic is the foundation of all science.) While standing in the wind, face the full force of the wind which is directly in front of the wind. Now, form both hands into a cup which represents a ½ round, cupped turbine vane with volume. Now, cross over your hands and form a blade with no volume representing a propeller driven wind mill. Which of the two forms catch more wind and has full thrust from the wind?

The first part of the equation is solved: The maximum amount of energy in the wind is directly in front of the wind and the best surface form to catch the wind and consequently has more thrust and power is a ½ round aluminum turbine vane with volume.

The second part of the equation is as logical. Which direction will the maximum wind catch area turbine vane turn? Naturally, the turbine vanes and rotor turn harmoniously in the same direction as the wind is blowing. This eliminates wind noise caused by turbulence. A propeller blade rotates sideways to the wind energy airstream which results in less power produced, noise from propeller turbulence and high stress on bearings and blades creating high maintenance cost. Propellers are so big; birds can’t see them and they have devastated wild bird populations. Check out the out of control wind propeller explosions on You Tube.

The third part of the equation is that the more cupped wind catch surface area that is directly in front of the wind, the more powerful the turbine. A single dimension propeller can only expand in size and power by increasing its’ diameter. The multidimensional Baker Wind Turbine can not only increase its’ power by increasing its’ diameter but can expand horizontally and add exponentially more wind catch surface area and power.

The Baker Wind Turbine has 144 cupped turbine vanes that are 3 inches wide (5 ½ inches of surface area). The 3 inch aluminum vanes give us 11 inches of weld at the cupped base. Each turbine vane has 1 1/2 sq. ft. of cupped surface area. This is important because the stress per catch area unit is low as apposed to a large catch area with a high stress attachment to the hub. No one turbine vane pulls by itself but pulls together with the other turbine vanes in a “gang”. This spreading of wind energy over the rotor maximizes the wind catch area and spins the rotor smoothly without vibration. Each turbine hub has 6 turbine vanes that are 6 ft. long. There are 24 hubs (6ft. wide) and there are 18 rows. Each row contains 48 lineal ft. of turbine vanes. At any given moment, the top section contains 108 sq. ft. of cupped wind catch surface area. As each row is assembled, they are progressively stepped which forms a horizontal twist. Twist is torque and torque is horsepower. The more twist, the more horsepower. Dividing the diameter into 18 lateral rows creates massive torque that is visible. For example take a wood screw and hold it sideways and turn it. You will notice that the screw is made up of one helix and 8 or more twists (or flights). The Baker Wind Turbine is Like the Archimedean screw but made up of 6 helixes with 8 twists which torque from right to left six feet. The overall dynamic of the Baker Wind Turbine is germane to High Pressure Turbine Dynamics but adapted to Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics which I am the inventor of and the Baker Wind Turbine is the test prototype. Just as Mr. Parsons’ invention of the high pressure steam turbine revolutionized steam power; the Baker Wind Turbine will revolutionize low pressure wind power.

The Baker Wind Turbine rotor has a lower surface to weight ratio than a propeller windmill so the rotor and shaft which weigh 660 lbs. begins turning on 1 or 2 miles an hour of wind and will operate smoothly and quietly in a 100 mile an hour wind at an estimated (920 R.P.M). High pressure steam and gas turbines operate at 20,000 to 50,000 R.P.M or higher; so in high winds the low pressure turbine dynamic is figuratively just loafing along. The Baker Wind Turbine not only has a wider range of operation but also produces more power at any given wind speed than a propeller driven wind mill and therefore the new turbine wind energy technology should rightfully outmode the old propeller driven windmill technology. The Baker Wind Turbine, like all major inventions, has a wide range of applications that will change roof top architecture, bridge design, ship design, high speed (forced air) train electric grid locomotives, forced air/ electric cars, parks, airports and all areas where the wind can be utilized in a natural or forced air environment. The turbine is enclosed so the housing can be easily painted to blend in with the surrounding area.

The last part of the equation is a little harder to grasp, even some engineers don’t get it straight. Those who defy convention and who can think individually in multidimensional terms get it right away.

First the single dimension. One assumption in Betz’ Law is that a solid wall is considered 100 % efficient in the wind and a propeller is considered 50% efficient because half of the wind flows through the propeller which causes the propeller to turn. So, 6 feet by 6 feet swath of airstream at, lets say, 10 pounds pressure per square foot (pounds is air speed and density) would give you 360 pounds of pressure thrust overall. A 50% efficient propeller would have 180 lbs. of thrust available. A three blade propeller with 5 ½ inch wide blades and 6 foot in diameter (4 1/2 sq. ft. surface area or 40.5 lbs thrust) produces but a fraction of one horsepower. The reason for this is a small surface area propeller rotates on a flat plane sideways to the energy source, has little torque, and is of a single dimension.

The multidimensional Baker Wind Turbine wind in-take is 6 feet high by 6 feet wide by 12 feet deep. The wind travels laterally across the turbine top section 12 feet to the other side which creates rotary power. The turbine rotor vanes are denser close to the center of the hub and wider at the tips and spaced such that the wind passes through the turbine to the other side. Again, hold up the wood screw. Notice by looking across the top half of the screw that there are air passages to the other side? Remember the Baker Wind Turbine has 6 helixes and 8 twists and the air passages move from right to left six feet? Now, look at the down wind side of the screw and you will notice that the flight is open and fanned out and is not drafted by the spiral? The turbine spirals leading edge is made up of many turbine vanes from many different rows so they do not draft one another. Of course, the leading edge of the opening is constantly changing as the rotor turns. At the apex of the turbine, as observed directly in front of the wind in-feed, the vanes form a continuous wall dimensionally. Because there are dimensional openings between the turbine vanes, and air is highly fluid, the wind powers all nine rows at any given moment from one side to the other. Each row is one dimension under wind power and there are 9 rows. There are 48 lineal feet of 3 inch cupped turbine vanes per row and 108 cupped sq. ft. total under power. If we figure out our total surface area in the top section it would contain 198 sq. ft. of surface area under wind power. At 10 pounds per sq. ft. that would be 1,980 pounds of thrust overall. That is 49 times more than the estimated efficiency of 40.5 pounds thrust for a single dimension propeller operating in the same 6 foot by 6 foot airstream! The Baker Wind Turbine is even more powerful than just converting speed and density of air into rotary power, the traveling torque creates even more horsepower, however, digging into traveling torque equations at this time is not necessary. My point has already been proven in science that Baker Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics is at least 49 times more powerful then a propeller driven wind mill dynamic and my 12 feet in diameter low pressure turbine proves it. That is why I built model #3 so that people could see the powerful turbine dynamic operate even though they do not understand how it works or all of the ramifications of it working. Now you know how it works and basically the breakthrough technology of Baker Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics. Did you get it? Or was it to much for your wee mind? For those who get it, read on. For those who don’t get it; drive down the road at 65 mph. and cup your hand into the wind and let it jerk your arm back and each time ask yourself “where is the power and energy in the wind”?

The reason the modern American Green Energy Economy is not moving forward is because independent scientist and individual inventors, like me, are without funding. The reason there is no funding is because the economic powers that be, the status quo, has snuffed any State or Federal funding programs for independent green energy inventors. Are you surprised there is no level ground? Do you know what scares the hell out of the multinational Big Oil and energy barons? The answer is the advancement of science with new inventions that they can’t control (their economy) that would outmode the use of fossil fuels for energy (their product). That is the cause of man made Global Warming.

Logically, one would think that the first government action would be to utilize our national talent by holding a national green energy science contest thereby acting free from Big Oil. I am not the only independent inventor; there would be thousands of qualified applicants with new concepts. The winner would receive a one million dollar reward to further develop the new green energy concept. Ten million a month could finance and develop ten new grass root industries employing thousands in green energy jobs. Out with the old and in with the new, let the best win in science and the lesser fold or be outmoded by something even better. That is fair competition and free enterprise. A modern American Main Street Capitalism based on a green energy economy would grow from the bottom up and not be dominated and controlled by multinational corporations from the top down. Great inventors were individuals not controlled universities; they should be funded as well.

Lawrence Baker

650-218-9434 windcatch@gmail.com

Posted by: Lawrence Baker , 01 Jul 2009 | 21:59

Interesting that the article totally ignores the fact that the CEO of EON no less has expressed considerable concern that wind energy can be effective without a huge investment in back up conventional (carbon rich)power production. There are also many eminent scientists, such as Dr Dieter Helm (Select Committee advisor,) who are clear that wind is not the answer and could in fact decrease our energy security as well as failing to meet carbon reduction targets.

Even noted environmentalists, such as George Monbiot seem to be more sceptical as to the long term efficacy of on-shore wind energy whlst others such as David Bellamy and Iolo Williams are implacably opposed.

Supporters of wind energy must take into account the huge amounts of carbon released in the manufacture of the turbines and giant pylons to straddle our hills and valleys; production of vast amounts of concrete; altering and building roads and actually transporting the huge components to remote sites.

There is one reason and one reason alone for the rush for wind and that is not altruism but the motive of profit.

Posted by: Jill Kibble , 26 Jun 2009 | 22:53

I'm all for off-shore wind farms and in remote places not marked as areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. I'm with the "not in my back yard" crew as far as having a 100m high tower in my neighbours garden though (or worse those ineffectual micro turbines that make more noise than power). A bunch of solar panels on the roof... Not a problem (unless it's on a nice thatched roof).

True, you can reduce CO2 emissions on a windy day and true you don't need fossil fuel backup for base load guarantee. You DO need the right amount of base load backup though... but that should be nuclear power. Of course we need as much renewable power as possible to extend the other fuel resources we have but wind and solar are just novel ways to reduce our fuel consumption but NOT a way to reliably replace the required base load generating capacity.

The problem will be that on really sunny / windy days the nuclear / fossil power stations will be (ideally) idle but that makes them less commercially cost effective because they are most cost effective when running at 100%. But in the future the world will have to change to one where financial gain isn't the be-all-and-end-all of why we do things. Saving the environment is going to be a very costly business where the only reward is that we get to live.

This month 40 years ago a man set foot on the Moon. Where was the business benefit in dreaming of going to the Moon? We need a bit more of that enthusiasm for "doing something worthwhile" today.

I want to hear Obama update the Moon speech to read:

"...We choose to reduce our carbon emissions by 50% in this next decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to

organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we

are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the

others, too".

This is a race too. Just not to the Moon.

Posted by: AccordGuy , 25 Jun 2009 | 18:39

Great news! Hurrah for NAWAG. I hope they consign "windfarms" to history.

Posted by: Charles Turpin , 24 Jun 2009 | 19:42

Interesting approach adopted by the author here. Mr. Murray accuesses NAWAG of a cynical tactic of "teaching the controversy" whilst in fact adopting the same tactic himself. He must be adopting this tactic as he states that there is no controversy of wind energy's effectiveness - and if he isn't using this tactic then he most certainly is deaf and blind as there is ENORMOUS controversy over it. In fact, the only reason that controversy exists, and that wind energy hasn't been dropped from right thinking environmental and energy policies is because of the very successful implementation of the "teach the controversy" approach by the wind industry.

Posted by: Tony Leatham , 18 Jun 2009 | 08:24

One hardly needs any diabolical techniques to demonstrate the absurdity of wind power, one of the really dumb ways to make carbon-free electricity. And as for misleading claims, it would be hard t find a less ethical industry than commercial wind. Comparisons in which, not only are irrelevant "rated capacities" used, but the enormous side effect costs of wind and the limited lifespan of a wind machine

are totally ignored in cost analyses. Windmills are a poor way of producing small amounts of electrical energy in an unreliable and uncontrollable fashion. And, of yes, its cost are enormous.

Posted by: kerry bradshaw , 17 Jun 2009 | 14:11

You are "teaching the controversy" not NAWAG. The scientific fact is that wind energy does not reduce carbon emissions and as for anti groups wearing down developers - this is a wild untruth which you hope to promulgate until it becomes a factoid.

Posted by: S C Brown , 17 Jun 2009 | 11:36

Doubts about '...whether wind farms even lead to reductions in carbon emissions given that fossil fuels are still required to provide a base power load' is an interesting comment which is correct.

This plus the mechanical engineering weakness (maintenance and failure) mean that it is only government subsidy (yet another taxpayer burden) which enables the power generators to undertake wind power projects. Electricity from wind power is significantly more expensive than alternatives.

Posted by: Gedrow , 17 Jun 2009 | 11:29

It's funny that the wind energy campaign, which was in many ways created by looking at the problems with conventional energy policy, is now being threatened by those same tactics. Though it is no doubt important to point out the dangers of McLeod's position and influence, it's worth remembering the work his PR firm has done for cleantech. Hopefully this "controversy" will open up discussion about the facts of wind power.

Posted by: Padosa , 16 Jun 2009 | 21:42

And you made this entire case without mentioning "Wind Turbine Syndrome", or "Vibro Acoustic Disease". We don't KNOW for sure that low frequency vibrations from wind turbines do not cause internal organs to vibrate in a way that leads to severe physiological problems - and we do know that windfarm opponents who live near turbines may start manifesting self-reported physical ailments after construction. So there is certainly doubt as to whether wind farms are harmless, even where turbine noise levels are well wel below levels someone living in an urban environment is subject to on a round the clock basis with no statistically higher probability of acquiring any of these syndromes.

Posted by: Phil , 16 Jun 2009 | 18:18

Nice article, but I think you mean MMR jab? And in relation to intelligent design, calling this an 'entirely reasonable alternative' is wrong. It could perhaps be a 'supposedly reasonable alternative'.

Posted by: Jonathan , 16 Jun 2009 | 16:58